Senator Zel Miller (D-GA) recently proposed the abolition of the 17^th amendment on the Senate floor. This is the amendment that took the right to vote for Senators away from the State legislatures and gave it to the people. Senator Miller has an excellent idea for a lot of reasons.

According to our Founding Fathers, the House of Representatives was the branch of government which the people were to elect directly. As such, Congressmen would react swiftly to the concerns of the populous and would enact federal legislation to address the problems brought before them. This legislation would then be sent to the Senate, which has an equal number of representatives per State and which once contained Senators elected by their State legislators. The system of checks and balances envisioned by our Founding Fathers was directly tied to a body of Senators who were beholden to their State legislatures.

What do you think would happen, for example, if one of these new federal laws invented in the House trampled on States' rights? How far would such a piece of legislation go in the Senate when Senators must answer to their State legislators? In times past the answer was, "It wouldn't go at all" unless the Senator wanted to be recalled and replaced, which the State legislatures had the power to do.

The rights of the people were in no way infringed by this process. In fact, our ancestors found it much easier to write or travel to their State legislatures and tell their State representatives how they wanted their Senators to vote on a particular issue. It is still true today that our State legislators are much more accessible than our Senators, and when Senators are elected by the State legislators, you can bet they will confer before any votes are cast in the U.S. Senate. Today, such conferences are rarely the case.

This is also an excellent way to implement campaign finance reform. If we let our State legislators know what issues are important to us, then prospective Senators can concentrate on talking to the hundreds of legislators as opposed to the millions of us. The potential for savings is vast and, as a result, Senatorial candidates need not be limited to millionaires or those who can raise millions in campaign cash.

But more than anything else, Senators elected by their State legislatures will create the originally envisioned system of checks and balances that will allow each State to become the experiment in democracy envisioned by our Founding Fathers.

Did you know that we are not supposed to have one over-arching welfare system in America? The constitution specifically precludes the federal government from enacting a "one size fits all" solution to this problem. Each State was to handle the matter directly for its citizens and learn from the ideas generated in neighboring States. Over time, the most cost-effective system would be created. Yes, it's messy, but that's democracy. Dictatorships have always been more efficient.

We have one welfare system dictated from Washington, DC for everyone. A good deal of the money put into this system is churned and burned in the big DC paper shuffle. Nothing is produced in this shuffle, for nothing is manufactured in DC, but a good deal of money is destroyed as far as the States are concerned. Over and above the money taken off the top by the cost of DC administration, the bureaucrats can at any time decide not to give us the remainder because our State is not in compliance with subparagraph something or other.

This not only goes for the welfare program, but for other federal programs that doll out money for roads, highways, bridges, schools and a myriad of other things that were envisioned to be within the purview of the State governments, not the federal government. This money should never find its way to Washington in the first place.

In fact, the power of the federal government is so limited in the constitution, that the constitution contains a proviso which requires Congressmen and Senators to assemble once a year, just in case they forget because there's so little to do. Clearly, the State legislatures were envisioned as the big power players, not the federal government.

As our federal government continues to assert itself into our daily lives on a greater and greater scale, the reasonable person is given cause to exclaim, "Where will it ever end?". There are three answers to this question.

The first is that a continuation of present policies will cause our nation to implode under the weight of continued federal overregulation.

The second is that the States can hope to be given some autonomy from federal dictatorship, but without bringing about any concrete change to require that relief. This, of course, means that the States must throw themselves at the feet of our federal officials and hope for the best. Just don't hope for too much.

The third is the enactment of concrete changes — like the repeal of the 17^th amendment — to ensure that, in the future, the States will have more control over their destiny, that the federal government will not usurp every ounce of autonomy from our State borders, and that a free people will remain ever so for as long as the imagination can comprehend.

Yes, indeed, Senator Zel Miller has an excellent idea there.